A  DEFENCE 

OF  THE 


MISSIONARY  ORGANIZATIONS 


OF  THE 

BAPTIST  DENOMINATION. 


BEING  A  REVIEW  OF  A  PAMPHLET  ENTITLED 


“THOUGHTS  ON  THE  MISSIONARY  ORGANIZATIONS  OF  THE 
BAPTIST  DENOMINATION,  BY  FRANCIS..  MTAYLAND J.’. 


4  ^  » 


BOSTON: 

JOHN  M.  HEAVES,  81  CORNHILL. 

1  8  5  9. 


.  C.  llAHD  &  Aveey,  Prjnters,  3  Coekiiire,  Postoht. 


Geo 


A  DEFENCE 


OP  THE 

MISSIONARY  ORGANIZATIONS 

OP  THE 

BAPTIST  DENOMINATION. 


This  review  is  necessarily  anonymous.  Few  men 
have  a  reputation  which  would  justify  them  in  op¬ 
posing  Dr.  Wayland’s  views  on  that  ground,  or  that 
would  screen  them  from  apparent  ostentation  in  so 
doing.  The  author  believes  his  positions  sound,  and 
asks  for  them  only  the  consideration  to  which  they 
are  entitled  on  that  account. 

I  heard  with  pleasure,  in  common  with  many 
others,  that  Dr.  Wayland  would  publish  his  views  upon 
the  question  of  our  benevolent  organizations.  I 
knew  he  sympathized,  generally,  with  the  movement 
against  them,  and  supposed  that  he,  if  any  man, 
could  show  cause  for  it.  Yery  well,  I  said,  let  us  have 
the  worst  of  it ;  then  we  shall  be  prepared  either  to 
give  them  up  or  to  defend  them.  I  read  and  re-read 
the  pamphlet,  but  my  convictions  in  favor  of  the 
societies  were  confirmed.  It  is  only  true  that  they 


4 


f 

/ 

I 

I 

are  imperfect,  which  is  equally  true  of  all  human  in¬ 
stitutions.  Dr.  Wayland’s  substitute,  if,  indeed,  he 
means  seriously  to  put  it  forth  as  such,  namely,  “  Bap¬ 
tist  Associations,”  is  liable  to  the  same  objections. 

One  fact,  already  obvious  everywhere  in  the  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  societies,  is  rendered  still  more  so  by  the 
pamphlet,  namely,  that  there  is  no  harmony  between 
their  opponents.  “Confusion  worse  confounded”  was 
the  strongest  feeling  I  had  after  comparing  the  ideas 
of  the  pamphlet  with  those  of  the  press  for  the  last 
few  months.  Dr.  Wayland  does  not  advocate  “  con¬ 
solidation,”  at  all  events ;  and  his  pamphlet  is  as  much 
opposed  to  the  popular  movement  against  them,  as  to 
the  societies  themselves.  He  says : — 

“  I  remark,  then,  in  the  first  place,  that  centralizing  organiza¬ 
tions  are  certainly  not  in  strict  accordance  with  the  principles 
made  known  by  our  Lord.” 

After  referring  to  the  project  of  “consolidation,” 
he  continues :  — 

“  The  evils  of  centralization  would,  however,  seem  in  this 
manner  to  be  increased  rather  than  diminished.  Can  we  not 
find  something  better  adapted  to  our  purpose  ?  ” 

It  would  seem  that  if  there  were  anything  feasible 
in  the  opposition  to  the  societies,  its  friends  would  by 
this  time  have  attained  to  some  harmony.  We  have 
been  told  of  the  dangers  of  centralization,  before  the 
pamphlet  appeared,  and  then,  by  the  same  parties,  we 
have  been  advised  to  greater  centralization,  by  putting 
our  four  societies  into  one  or  two,  instead.  We  have 


been  referred  to  the  Methodist  and  the  Presbyterian 
systems  of  benevolence  as  worthy  of  our  imitation,  by 
those  who  in  other  connections  warn  us  against  their 
example;  and  now  we  name  Dr.  Wayland’s  system 
ignoring  all  these,  and  giving  us  one  u  better  still,” 
namely,  the  u  Baptist  Associations.”  More  of  this  last 
plan  by  and  by.  I  only  wish,  now,  to  say,  that  this 
extreme  diversity  of  views,  where  there  should  be 
some  harmony,  does  not  augur  well  for  the  cause  of 
the  opponents  of  the  societies.  As  the  pamphlet  re¬ 
marks  of  another  matter,  it  might  well  remark  of  this, 
“  we  are  drifting  to  the  leeward,  we  hardly  know 
whither.”  I  may  be  permitted  to  commend  to  those 
concerned,  the  advice  of  the  editor  of  the  Western 
Watchman  on  this  subject:  “We  beg  to  suggest  to 
our  friend  of  the  Examiner  the  propriety  of  taking  a 
lunar  observation  and  of  examining  its  reckoning.” 

Not  only  is  the  pamphlet  opposed  to  consolidation, 
but  it  shows  that  this  scheme  has  been  tried ;  so  that 
its  friends  have  suggested  nothing  new,  and  may  find 
in  our  history  how  their  plan  has  worked.  Deferring 
to  the  old  Triennial  Convention,  it  remarks :  — 

“  Soon  the  attempt  was  made  to  render  the  Convention  the 
agent  for  all  our  benevolent  operations.  Home  Missions,  a  Tract 
Society,  a  General  Education  Society,  together  with  the  Colum¬ 
bian  College,  were  consolidated  under  its  management,  and  in 
fact  one  common  treasury  was  to  be  used  for  them  all.  The 
Board  in  the  mean  time  had  been  removed  from  Philadelphia  to 
Washington,  which  was  henceforth  to  be  the  centre  of  all  these 
great  undertakings.  The  result  may  easily  be  imagined.  Con¬ 
fidence  in  the  wisdom  of  the  Board  was  shaken,  the  means  for 
1  # 


6 


carrying  on  its  schemes  were  withheld,  and  everything  seemed  on 
the  verge  of  destruction.  The  denomination  came  to  the  res¬ 
cue.  These  various  objects  of  benevolence  were  separated  from 
the  missionary  department,”  etc. 

Permit  me  here  to  suggest  a  plan.  The  present 
heaven-provided  societies,  the  result  of  experience 
under  the  guiding  hand  of  divine  Providence  —  ex¬ 
cepting  the  imperfections  incident  to  a  fallen  state  — 
are  just  the  thing.  With  a  few  modifications  they 
will  answer  the  demands  of  all  parties.  This  plan 
will  not  only  answer  all  practical  purposes,  but  save 
us  the  mortification  of  demolishing  the  work  of  nearly 
half  of  a  century,  and  inaugurating  new  and  doubt¬ 
ful  schemes. 

We  should  all  rejoice  in  real  progress,  but 
strongly  object  to  change  where  there  is  no  gain.  The 
extremes  to  be  guarded  against  by  all  true  con¬ 
servatives  are  in  these  directions.  It  is  on  such 
grounds  that  I  beg  to  protest  against  the  revolution 
some  are  contemplating  in  our  benevolent  organiza¬ 
tion.  By  great  effort  and  expense  we  have  just 
elevated  them  to  a  useful  position,  and  it  is  the 
caprice  of  children  now  to  destroy  them. 

THE  AMERICAN  BAPTIST  MISSIONARY  UNION. 

With  this  society,  Dr.  Wayland  deals  more  at 
length,  and  with  greater  severity,  than  with  any 
other.  We  object  entirely  to  his  theory  here. 
The  providence  of  God  has  as  evidently  manifested 
itself  in  originating  and  conducting  this  institution 


as  in  any  other  way  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

It  seems  like  casting  doubt  upon  every  thing — like 
demolishing  all  hopes  of  any  permanency  or  good 
in  human  efforts.  Without  the  most  extreme  ne¬ 
cessity,  the  position  against  the  Union  should  not 
have  been  taken.  That  no  such  necessity  exists, 
we  hope  -to  be  able  to  show. 

A  large  portion  of  the  pamphlet  is  devoted  to 
repeating  and  detailing  our  trials  in  Foreign  Mission 
operations  at  home  and  abroad.  What  object  can 
be  gained  by  this  course  ?  Are  we  not  all  painfully 
familiar  with  the  facts,  without  the  necessity  of 
printing  the  most  of  a  pamphlet  upon  the  subject? 
It  were  hardly  possible  to  give  greater  notoriety 
to  the  facts,  and  it  certainly  was  not  desirable. 

Not  content  with  repeating  present  familiar  trials, 
we  are  carried  back  through  the  entire  history  of 
our  Foreign  Missions,  and  assured  that  the  fathers 
were  no  better  or  wiser  than  we : 

“  Nor  is  this  state  of  things  a  novelty.  It  existed  under 
the  former  Triennial  Convention  as  distinctly  as  under  the 
present  Missionary  Union.” 

I  ask  again,  What  advantage  is  to  be  gained  by 
repeating  our  trials  and  imperfections,  either  of  the 
present  or  the  past  ?  To  be  sure,  we  are  imperfect, 
morally  and  intellectually ;  and  we  can  hardly  hope 
our  fathers  were  otherwise.  But  the  remedy  for  all 
this  is  not  in  dwelling  upon  our  mistakes,  and  cer¬ 
tainly  not  in  exaggerating  them.  We  commend  to 
all  concerned,  as  a  better  way,  the  familiar  lines : 


8 


ct  Arise,  let  us  no  more  revile  or  blame  each  other, 
Blamed  enough  elsewhere  ; 

But  strive  in  offices  of  love,  * 

How  we  may  lighten  each  others’  burden.” 

Not  only  does  it  seem  to  me  wrong  to  dwell 
upon,  and  repeat,  and  detail  these  trials,  but  that 
the  result  to  which  the  pamphlet  comes  by  them  is 
at  once  unsound,  and  contrary  to  the  facts : 

“If  such  be  the  case” — the  result  from  these  trials  to 
which  the  pamphlet  comes  —  “  it  naturally  leads  us  to  inquire 
whether  it  be  in  our  power  to  carry  on  successfully  any  general 
and  centralizing  organizations.  It  is  of  no  avail  to  say  that 
other  denominations  have  done  it,  and  are  doing  it.  This  is 
granted ;  but  it  only  shows  that  their  experience  differs  from 
ours  —  where  they  have  succeeded,  we  have  failed.  We  have 
failed  twice  under  different  organizations ;  for  steady  decrease 
of  efforts  for  a  succession  of  years  may  certainly  be  considered 
a  failure.” 

And  is  it  so  ?  Have  we  failed  “  twice  under 
different  organizations”  already?  In  other  words, 
have  all  our  Foreign  Missionary  operations  been  a 
failure  ?  for  this  is  meant  by  u  twice  ” — once  under 
the  Triennial  Convention,  where  the  work  com¬ 
menced,  and  was  continued  for  years,  and  once 
under  the  present  Missionary  Union.  We  answer, 
emphatically,  No,  to  this  query.  If  wide  difference 
of  opinion — if  contention,  including  even  a  bad  spirit 
— if  anything  of  this  kind,  claimed  by  the  pamphlet, 
constitutes  a  failure,  then  this  world  is  replete  with 
failures,  for  everything  great  and  grand  has  had  all 


these  to  contend  with.  On  any  such  theory  Brown 
University  is  a  failure;  the  First  Baptist  church 
in  Providence  is  a  failure ;  the  Warren’s  Association  is 
a  failure.  But  no,  no,  no  ;  these  conflicts  are  rather 
the  evidence  of  success,  for  all  success  is  attended 
with  them.  The  devil  is  by  no  means  conquered, 
and  will  still  dispute  every  inch  of  our  progress. 
What  he  cannot  do  abroad,  he  will  do  at  home. 
In  the  idea  of  an  eloquent  man,  all  this  conflict 
may  be  but  the  tuning  of  the  numerous  instruments 
of  a  large  orchestra,  preparatory  to  the  full  burst  of 
harmony.  And  Mr.  Carlyle  says  : 

“  Temptations  in  the  wilderness,  choices  of  Hercules,  and 
the  like,  in  succinct  or  loose  forms,  are  appointed  for  every 
man  that  will  assert  a  soul  in  him,  and  be  a  man.  Let 
Oliver  take  comfort  in  his  dark  sorrows  and  melancholies. 
The  quantity  of  sorrow  he  has,  does  it  not,  withal,  mean  the 
quantity  of  sympathy  he  has,  the  quantity  of  faculty  and 
victory  he  shall  yet  have  ?  Our  sorrow  is  the  inverted  image 
of  our  nobleness.  The  depth  of  our  despair  measures  what 
capability  and  height  of  claim  we  have  to  hope.  Black  smoke 
as  of  Tophet,  filling  all  your  universe,  it  can  yet,  by  true  heart 
energy,  become  flame  and  brilliancy  of  heaven — courage  !  ” 

In  some  such  direction  as  this  let  us  look  to  ac¬ 
count  for  our  conflicts,  and  not  pronounce  them 
evidence  of  failure. 

The  pamphlet  admits  that  other  denominations 
have  succeeded  in  the  use  of  societies,  but  claims  that 
in  this  “  their  experience  differs  from  ours.”  Not  very 
much,  either,  I  answer.  We  may  have  had  more  trouble, 


10 


but  they  have  all  had  enough  to  constitute  them  fail¬ 
ures  on  any  such  principle.  The  American  Board  of 
Commissioners,  for  instance,  have  had  troubles  enough 
to  have  discouraged  men  without  faith.  Debates, 
differences  of  opinion,  debts,  etc.,  are  found  all  through 
its  history,  If  we  have  had  more,  it  is  only  because 
we  are  still  freer  than  they  — and  we  must  expect  to 
pay  the  penalty  of  freedom.  Having  no  man  or  men 
to  govern  us,  we  must  try  and  govern  ourselves.  This 
leads  to  debate,  and  debate  to  difference  of  opinion, 
and  this,  sad  to  say,  to  strife ;  and  in  regard  to  better 
men  than  we,  these  things  have  before  now  resulted 
in  “  contention  so  sharp,  that  they  departed  asunder, 
one  from  the  other.”  As  in  their  case  this  sharp  con¬ 
tention  resulted  in  the  furtherance  of  the  gospel,  so  it 
may  in  ours.  At  all  events,  as  Paul  and  Barnabas 
were  not  deemed  impracticable  on  account  of  this 
“  passage  at  arms,”  and  as,  on  account  of  it,  their 
efforts  were  not  deemed  a  failure,  so  we  need  not  take 
so  sombre  a  view  of  our  similar  trials.  Possibly  it 
were  better  for  us,  if  our  savans  had  a  more  control¬ 
ling  influence,  and  if  a  word  from  them  could  at  any 
time  restore  peace  to  the  troubled  waters ;  and  yet 
we  are  not  likely  to  make  the  experiment.  Whilst  it 
remains  true  that  “  one  is  our  Master,  and  all  we  are 
brethren,”  we  must  expect  to  differ;  and  such  things 
do  not  prove  that  our  system  has  failed,  but  only  that 
it  is  free  as  the  winds  that  blow. 

I  must  also  beg  to  dissent  from  the  conclusions  of 
the  pamphlet  in  regard  to  this  “failure,”  not  only  as 
far  as  the  philosophy  of  it  is  concerned,  but  the  facts. 


The  facts,  after  all,  though  they  have  dark  shades,  are 
brilliant  with  encouragement.  And  here,  singular 
enough,  the  pamphlet  refutes  itself. 

“  Xn  tho  foreign  field  our  case  is  yet  more  to  he  deplored. 

Such  is  the  proposition,  and  proof  of  it  immedi¬ 
ately  follows,  thus  : 

«  God  gave  us  at  the  beginning  missionaries  whose  praise  is 
in  all  the  churches.  We  sent  them  to  a  most  inviting  field  of 
labor,  and  gave  them  souls  for  their  hire  in  a  great  measure.  In 
no  portion  of  the  missionary  ground  has  the  word  of  God  been 
attended  with  a  richer  blessing.  This  manifestation  of  divine 
grace  has  continued  in  Burmah  from  the  close  of  the  war  with 
England  to  the  present  day.” 

This  remark  is  essentially  true  of  all  our  missions  in 
Asia,  and  certainly  of  the  German  mission  in  Europe, 
and  these  cover  most  of  our  ground.  The  friends  of 
missions  of  other  denominations  harmonize  in  this 
view  of  the  eminent  success  of  Baptist  Foreign  Mis¬ 
sions.  This  success  abroad  implies  success  at  home. 
With  some,  or,  if  you  please,  with  much  difference  of 
opinion  at  home  as  to  measures,  we  have  still  been 
sufficiently  harmonious,  and  generally  wise  to  raise 
the  very  large  sums  of  money  necessary,  and  other¬ 
wise  to  conduct  the  missions  to  the  successful  issue 
which  none  fail  to  recognize. 

But  says  the  pamphlet  — 

a  y\re  have  failed  twice  under  different  organizations  ;  for 
steady  decrease  of  efforts  for  a  succession  of  years  may  certainly 
be  considered  a  failure.” 


12 


By  no  fair  process  of  reasoning,  however,  can  it 
be  shown  that  there  has  been  a  u  steady  decrease  of 
efforts  for  a  succession  of  years.”  It  is  rather  true 
that,  with  ordinary  fluctuations,  such  as  are  incident 
to  churches  in  revivals  and  declensions,  to  commerce 
in  seasons  of  prosperity  and  panic,  our  missionary 
course  has  been  onward  from  the  commencement.  If 
the  receipts  are  any  criterion,  and  I  suppose  by 
“  efforts”  particular  reference  is  had  to  these,  then  my 
position  is  the  correct  one.  Let  me  here  subjoin  the 
receipts  for  the  last  fourteen  years,  which  comprise 
those  of  the  Missionary  Union  entire.  The  previous 
receipts  of  the  Triennial  Convention  will  show  a  simi¬ 
lar  fluctuation.  There  has  been  no  diminution  on  the 
whole,  but  an  increase. 


1845-46 

$105,736  46 

1852-53 

$108,186 

55 

1846-47 

85,093  42 

1853-54 

114,847  42 

1847-48 

85,894  42 

1854-55 

102,164 

58 

1848-49 

88,902  99 

1855-56 

118,134 

81 

1849-50 

86,853  00 

1856-57 

98,812 

28 

1850-51 

95,776  35 

1857-58 

85,850 

14 

1851-52 

98,814  69 

1858-59 

say  90,000 

00 

The  highest  point  reached  at  all  was  in  1855-6, 
only  four  years  ago.  No  one  can  predict  what  the 
next  four  years  may  develop.  There  is  no  substan¬ 
tial  season  why  they  should  not  exceed  any  previous 
four  years  of  our  history,  and  they  are  as  likely  to  as 
anything  else. 

If  it  is  said  that  the  increase  should  have  been 
greater  than  it  has,  to  keep  pace  with  the  increase  of 


13 


the  population  and  prosperity  of  the  country,  let  it 
be  borne  in  mind  that  since  we  commenced  our  For¬ 
eign  Mission  work  in  1814,  there  have  sprung  into  be¬ 
ing  the  Publication  Society,  in  1824;  Home  Mission 
Society,  in  1832;  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Soci¬ 
ety,  in  1838 ;  and  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention,  in 
1845.  All  these  societies,  to  say  nothing  of  numer¬ 
ous  others  which  have  sprung  up  in  the  necessities  of 
the  cause,  have  made  large  drafts  upon  the  benevolence 
of  the  churches,  and  still  the  Foreign  Mission  has 
gone  steadily  onward.  Under  these  circumstances 
we  are  justified  in  exclaiming,  “  Behold  what  God  hath 
wrought.”  They  utterly  forbid  the  unworthy  doubts 
of  the  pamphlet.  Beyond  all  question,  the  true  pol¬ 
icy  for  the  denomination  is  to  rally  around  the  Mis¬ 
sionary  Union ;  “  come  to  the  rescue,”  as  the  pamphlet 
assures  us  they  have  done  before  in  circumstances 
quite  as  desperate.  This  will  undoubtedly  be  the 
result.  Probably  it  were  an  improvement  so  to  amend 
the  Constitution  as  to  admit  of  church  representation 
without  the  interposition  of  any  sum  of  money.  This 
need  not  interfere  with  the  present  system  of  life 
membership  representation.  It  weie  only  adding 
another  and  harmonious  method  of  representation, 

[  and  were  a  suitable  and  harmless  concession  to  the 
democratic  tendencies  incident  to  us. 

Probably  the  former  Secretaries  and  the  “Deputa¬ 
tion  ”  made  the  mistake  of  attempting  an  extreme 
government  of  the  missionaries.  In  this  way  they 
became  unpopular.  If  this  was  the  principal  difficulty 

the  evil  will  gradually  pass  away  with  the  policy 

2 


14 


which  created  it.  The  present  Secretary  is  deservedly 
popular  at  home  and  abroad,  and  has  qualities  emi¬ 
nently  adapted  to  heal  the  breach.  Give  him  and  his 
coadjutors  time,  and  we  shall  see  what  the  result  will 
be.  We  owe  it  to  all  concerned,  to  make  an  earnest, 
honest  effort  in  this  direction  before  we  give  utter¬ 
ance  to  another  note  of  discord. 

THE  AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY. 

But  a  small  space  in  the  pamphlet  is  devoted  to 
this  Society.  Pages  8th  and  11th  inclusive  contain  all 
that  is  said  directly,  and  even  these  are  only  partly 
devoted  to  this  topic.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that 
the  objections  brought  to  this  society  pretty  much 
cover  the  ground,  and  if  there  is  force  in  them,  it 
hardly  has  any  apology  for  its  existence.  I  take  up 
these  objections  in  the  order  in  which  they  occur  in 
the  pamphlet. 

We  have  first  Colportage. 

tf  The  Publication  Society  employs  itself  in  colporteur  labor, 
jind  makes  this  the  strong  ground  of  its  solicitations.” 

This  the  pamphlet  deems  an  infringement  of  the 
work  of  the  Home  Mission  Society,  and  evidence  that 
the  societies  are  u  complicated  and  interfering  with 
each  other.”  I  have  been  familiar  with  the  Publica¬ 
tion  Society  a  long  time,  and  was  not  aware  that  it 
makes  colportage  u  the  strong  ground  of  its  solicita¬ 
tions.”  A  very  little  knowledge  of  the  society  is 
sufficient  to  show  that  colportage  is  but  one  of  its 
objects,  and  by  nq  means  the  most  important  one.  It 


15 


is  also  the  only  Tract  Society  and  the  only  Sunday 
School  Society  of  the  denomination,  and  I  am  unable 
to  discover  that  they  are  not  made  equally  u  strong 
grounds  of  solicitation.” 

But  suppose  the  charge  were  true.  The  Home 
Mission  Society  has  no  colporteurs.  Long  after  Home 
Missions  were  inaugurated,  the  idea  was  conceived  of 
employing  good  men,  who  might  or  might  not  be  cler¬ 
gymen,  to  visit  from  house  to  house  and  circulate 
good  books,  conversing  and  praying  with  the  people 
in  the  mean  time.  Where  these  men  are  ministers  it 
is  true  they  preach  and  do  any  thing  else  it  is  suitable 
for  a  minister  to  do ;  but  their  prime  work  relates  to 
the  circulation  of  publications  and  visiting  from  house 
to  house.  By  common  consent,  this  kind  of  work 
was  commenced  and  conducted  by  Tract  Societies,  as 
our  own  and  the  American  Society.  It  is  obvious 
that  the  circulation  of  books  properly  belongs  to  book 
making  societies.  I  perceive  that  the  intelligent  edi¬ 
tor  of  the  New  York  Chronicle  takes  this  view  of  the 
necessary  relation  between  book-making  and  circula¬ 
ting  societies.  Any  practical  man,  who  knows  any 
thing  about  it,  must  do  the  same.  It  does  not  follow 
that  the  work  of  the  home  missionary  and  the  colpor¬ 
teur  are  the  same  because  they  have  points  of  resem¬ 
blance,  for  they  have  more  points  of  difference. 

The  circulation  of  books  is  as  incompatible  with 
the  work  of  the  regular  missionary  as  with  that  of 
the  pastor,  and  is  sufficiently  so  with  each  to  prevent 
their  doing  any  considerable  amount  of  it.  Every 
inducement  has  been  held  out  to  pastors  and  mission- 


16 


aries  to  circulate  books,  by  societies  and  private  pub¬ 
lishers,  but  without  success.  In  the  providence  of 
God  there  has  been  added  to  the  missionary  pi  opei, 
the  colporteur,  to  do  what  he  never  did  and  never  can. 

Not  only  is  the  colporteur  different  from  the  mis¬ 
sionary  proper,  but  the  society  to  sustain  him,  sup¬ 
plying  him  with  books  to  sell  and  donate,  is  a  very 
different  affair  from  a  Home  Mission  Society  proper, 
for  the  reason  that  books  constitute  so  large  an  ele¬ 
ment  of  it.  It  is  of  course  true  that  the  Home  Mis¬ 
sion  Society  might  be  made  also  a  colporteur  society, 
but  it  is  only  as  you  may  change  one  society  into 
another  and  entirely  different  one.  Colportage  sprang 
out  of  the  Publication  Society  as  naturally  as  a  limb 
from  a  tree.  It  commenced  the  work  of  colportage 
in  this  country  in  advance  of  every  society,*  and  has 
carried  it  on  with  great  economy  and  general  success, 
and  there  is  no  excuse  whatever  for  claiming  its  work 
here  as  an  infringement  upon  any  society. 

The  Publication  Society  has  offended  in  another  par¬ 
ticular  : 

«  The  Publication  Society  has  some  colporteurs  in  the  North 
of  Europe,  the  very  same  work  that  the  Union  is  carrying  on 
in  Germany.  It  appeals  to  the  public  for  aid  on  the  ground  of 
its  labors  in  foreign  missions.” 

If  it  is  meant  by  this  that  no  parties  ought  to  do 
anything  for  the  destitute  abroad  but  the  Foreign 
Mission  Society,  then  we  must  dissent  from  the  conclu¬ 
sion;  and  we  know  of  no  better  illustration  of  the 


♦See  History  of  the  Am.  Bap.  Pub.  Soc.,  pages  124, 125. 


17 


correctness  of  our  dissent  than  the  very  fact  com¬ 
plained  of.  It  had  pleased  God  to  cause  a  very 
remarkable  awakening  in  the  North  of  Europe.  A 
learned  and  excellent  clergyman  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  Sweden,  a  subject  of  this  awakening,  comes 
to  this  country,  and  supplicates  his  Baptist  brethren 
(for  he  had  become  a  Baptist  by  reading  a  book  of  the 
Publication  Society)  to  do  something  for  Sweden, 
where  there  was  no  Baptist  mission,  or  any  evangeli¬ 
cal  mission,  excepting  a  small  Methodist  one.  Is  such 
a  Macedonian  cry  as  this  to  be  disregarded  ?  And 
yet  disregarded  it  apparently  must  have  been  but  for 
the  Publication  Society.  The  Missionary  Union,  first 
of  all  urged  to  undertake  this  mission,  was  obliged 
formally  to  decline  it.  This  it  did  before  the  Publi¬ 
cation  Society  was  induced  to  entertain  it.  We  have 
been  repeatedly  assured  that  the  Publication  Society 
commenced  this  work  only  because  it  had  failed  to 
find  friends  elsewhere. 

And  yet  there  was  a  peculiar  fitness  in  this  work 
for  the  Publication  Society.  In  Sweden,  preaching 
out  of  the  established  church,  (the  Lutheran,)  was 
prohibited  by  law;  but  the  press  was  free,  and 
colporteurs  were  at  liberty  to  go  with  books  any¬ 
where.  This  circumstance  shows  the  work  to  be  em¬ 
inently  a  colporteur  work.  Such  it  has  been  from 
ths  commencement,  and  must  continue  to  be  for  the 
present.  The  result  has  been  glorious.  In  two  years’ 
time  there  has  resulted,  we  are  informed,  from  this 
Swedish  colporteur  mission,  a  Baptist  Association, 
with  some  fifty  churches  and  three  thousand  members; 


18 


and  the  expense  has  been  but  a  tithe  of  the  ordinary 
expense  of  sending  out  and  sustaining  foreign  mission¬ 
aries  proper.  To  my  mind,  to  object,  on  any  ground, 
to  this  marvellous  work,  is  downright  ingratitude,  and 
an  impeachment  of  the  providence  of  God. 

But  what  becomes  of  the  pamphlet’s  doctrine  of 
individuality  and  the  independence  of  the  churches,  if  it 
constitutes  an  offence,  or  even  a  mistake,  for  any  par¬ 
ties  who  feel  it  their  duty,  to  undertake  a  mission 
abroad  outside  of  the  Missionary  Union  ?  And  espe¬ 
cially,  with  what  consistency  does  the  pamphlet  object 
to  this  mission,  whilst  it  advocates  foreign  missions, 
conducted  not  only  by  individual  churches,  but  by 
individual  men  outside  of  any  society  ? 

Besides  all  this,  the  Publication  Society  is  a  Foreign 
as  well  as  Home  Society.  In  its  peculiar  sphere  it 
ever  has  worked  abroad  as  well  as  at  home.  It  has 
done  less  work  abroad  than  it  ought  to  have  had  the 
means  of  doing,  or  than  it  has  been  urged  by  foreign 
missionaries  to  do,  but  has,  nevertheless,  for  many 
years  done  something,  as  its  history  shows.  It  has, 
therefore,  only  done  its  appropriate  work  in  Sweden. 
God  grant  it  a  still  greater  work  abroad  as  well  as  at 

home. 

As  long  ago  as  1832,  when  the  missionary  receipts 
of  the  Publication  Society  were  yet  very  small,  it  had 
sent  “  in  one  year  $245  to  Burmah,  to  aid  Mr.  Judson 
in  printing  and  distributing  tracts  in  Burman,  be¬ 
sides  55,000  pages  of  tracts  for  circulation  among 
the  English  in  that  country.  A  small  appropriation 
had  been  made  to  colored  brethren  in  Liberia.”  At 


19 


the  same  time  Mr.  Oncken  had  begun  to  receive  aid 
from  this  society,  in  Germany,  of  which  he  writes  in 
the  highest  terms,  urging  a  continuance  and  increase 
of  its  efforts  for  u  infidel  Germany.”  The  facts  in  this 
direction  quite  justify  the  following  paragraph  from 
the  history  of  the  society : 

“  Thus  began,  in  1832,  by  the  influence  of  some  of  our  hum¬ 
blest  tracts,  under  the  mighty  hand  of  God,  the  great  work  of 
Baptist  evangelization  in  Germany,  from  which  such  glorious 
results, are  now  seen ;  which  has  penetrated  into  Switzerland, 
Denmark,  Norway,  Sweden,  and  even  Austria  ;  which  has 
already  planted  Baptist  churches  in  all  the  principal  cities  and 
capitals  of  Protestant  Europe,  revolutionized  the  opinions  of 
senates  and  kings  on  the  subject  of  religious  liberty,  and  stirred 
up  a  godly  jealousy  of  active  emulation  among  the  best  men  of 
the  state  churches,  as  is  apparent  in  the  organization  of  the  Ger¬ 
man  “  Church  Diet,”  and  the  “  Inner  Mission.” 

But  the  pamphlet  doubts  — 

“  Whether  we  should  go  into  this  work  (of  colportage)  at 
all,” 

and  assures  us  — 

“  That  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  it  is  a  very  efficient  or 
very  economical  mode  of  evangelization.” 

The  very  numerous  friends  and  patrons  of  colport¬ 
age  will  be  not  a  little  astonished  at  this  novel  sug¬ 
gestion.  We  do  not  suppose,  however,  that  there  is 
any  ground  whatever  for  it.  It  is  hardly  possible  that 
after  an  experience  of  eighteen  years  by  the  Publica¬ 
tion  Society,  (since  1840-1,)  and  of  the  American  Tract 
Society  for  nearly  the  same  time,  (to  say  nothing  of 


20 


other  societies,)  that  so  unanimous  a  conviction  that 
it  is  a  particularly  u  efficient,”  and  especially  u  econom- 
cal  ”  work,  can  be  a  mistaken  one.  Observe,  however, 
the  principal  reason  on  which  the  doubt  is  founded . 

“  A  church  is  the  natural  light  for  the  region  round  about  it, 
and  if  we  establish  churches  of  the  right  sort,  we  might  from 
their  own  members  raise  up  laborers  in  every  destitute  region.” 

Whilst  colportage  is  a  pioneer  work,  and  does  much 
which  is  only  indirectly  establishing  churches,  sowing 
the  seed  and  preparing  the  way,  it  nevertheless  does 
establish  churches  directly.  We  find  among  the  re¬ 
sults  of  the  labors  of  the  colporteurs  of  the  Publication 
Society,  as  an  important  item,  so  many  “churches 
constituted.”  Here  are  the  results  of  five  years’  col¬ 
porteur  work  of  this  society,  as  taken  from  the  Annual 
Report : 

«  The  labors  and  immediate  results  of  the  society’s  colportage 
for  the  last  five  years  is  as  follows  :  7,735  weeks’  service  ; 
135,766  volumes  sold  ;  13,400  volumes  given  away  ;  1,190,000 
pages  of  tracts  distributed  ;  14,140  sermons  preached;  8,233 
prayer  meetings  held  ;  240,000  families  visited  ;  2,849  persons 
baptized  (the  baptized  being  but  a  small  portion  of  the  number 
converted  through  their  instrumentality)  ;  165  Sunday  schools 
formed  ;  and  74  churches  constituted  ;  and  all  this  for  an  out¬ 
lay  by  the  society  of  not  over  $41,000.” 

I  presume  that  most  persons  will  concur  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  remark  of  the  society  appended  to  this  result : 

“  It  is  doubtful  whether  our  denomination  performs,  in  any 
way  whatever,  a  more  economical  mission  work  than  that  shown 
by  these  figures.” 


21 


I  am  unable  to  say  how  this  number  <*f  churches 
constituted  compares  with  the  number  of  the  Home 
Mission  Society,  but  we  are  informed  by  a  recent 
circular  of  the  Publication  Society,  that  its  col¬ 
porteurs,  11  during  the  last  three  years  have  reported 
over  700  more  baptisms  than  have  even  the  mis¬ 
sionaries  of  our  great  and  good  Home  Mission  So¬ 
ciety.” 

But  even  on  the  mistaken  supposition  that  col¬ 
porteurs  do  not  form  churches,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  there  seems  little  force  in  the  doubts  of 
the  pamphlet  as  to  their  necessity.  If  churches  are 
all  that  is  necessary,  how  happens  it  that  there  is 
so  much  work  for  colporteurs  where  churches  do  most 
abound  ?  A  little  book,  entitled  the  u  Harvest  and 
the  Reapers,”  gives  us  facts  carefully  collated  from 
reliable  sources,  of  which  some  of  us  were  aware 
before,  showing  that,  taking  our  whole  country  to¬ 
gether,  u  not  more  than  one-sixth  of  the  population 
are  regular  attendants  upon  public  worship.”  It 
also  appears,  u  that  even  in  the  four  States  of  Mas¬ 
sachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  Maine,  and  Vermont, 
about  one-half  of  the  inhabitants  do  not  attend  the 
sanctuary  at  all.”  It  is  easy  to  say,  in  answer  to 
these  fearful  facts,  that  the  churches  are  not  “of  the 
right  sort.”  What  prospect,  however,  have  we  that 
those  we  may  yet  establish  will  be  any  better  ?  How 
long  will  it  take  to  establish  churches  whose  mem¬ 
bers  shall,  by  their  zeal,  render  unnecessary  the 
labors  of  colporteurs  ?  And  what,  in  the  mean  time, 
is  to  become  of  the  millions  in  “  the  streets  and 


22 


lanes  of  the  cities/’  and  “highways  and  hedges  of 
the  country/’  unreached  by  either  private  church 
members  or  home  missionaries  proper  ?  How  can 
any  man  say — 

“  It  is  a  very  grave  question  whether  we  should  go  into  the 
work  at  all  ?  ” 

Second,  besides  these  objections  to  the  colporteur 
work  of  the  Publication  Society,  it  has  two  general 
objections  to  its  publication  operations. 

“  Have  we  not  publishing  houses  who  would  pledge  them¬ 
selves  to  do  all  that  the  society  does,  without  the  expense  of  a 
dollar  to  the  denomination  ?  ” 

Possibly  we  have  those  who  would  assume  this 
responsibility;  but  if  so,  they,  I  apprehend,  would  do 
it  with  very  little  appreciation  of  what  they  had 
undertaken,  and  very  little  prospect  of  its  accom¬ 
plishment. 

The  question  here  raised  is  no  new  one.  As  far 
back  as  I  have  taken  any  interest  in  such  matters 
(more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century),  I  have  seen,  from 
time  to  time,  in  the  papers,  objections  to  publishing 
societies  on  precisely  this  ground.  Some  publishers 
have,  from  the'  commencement,  objected  to  societies 
for  such  purposes ;  and,  at  their  instigation,  and  per¬ 
haps  without,  the  ground  has  been  gone  over,  and 
the  public  shown,  that  private  publishers  not  only 
can  do  the  work,  but  can  do  it  better  than  societies. 
In  the  mean  time  have  grown  up  the  American  Bap¬ 
tist  Society,  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Tract  Society,  the  American  Sunday  School 
Union,  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication,  more 


23 


than  one  Episcopal  Prayer-Book  Society,  the  New 
England  Sunday  School  Union,  the  Massachusetts 
Sunday  School  Society,  &c.,  all  of  which  goes  to 
show  how  dull  the  people  are,  or  else  how  feeble 
the  arguments  against  societies.  And  now,  strange 
to  tell,  the  old  objection  is  revived,  and  we  are 
asked  to  go  over  the  ground  again. 

Here  are  the  grounds  on  which  the  pamphlet  relies 
for  its  position  in  favor  of  private  publishers  in  the 
order  in  which  they  occur.  First, 

“If  a  book  will  be  read,  it  will  pay  for  itself;  if  it  will  not 
be  read,  there  is  no  object  in  publishing  it.” 

The  answer  to  this  is,  that  while  no  society 
should  or  does  think  of  publishing  books  that 
will  not  u  be  read,”  all  experience  shows,  that  in 
order  to  the  progress  of  truth,  not  understood 
and  not  appreciated,  you  cannot  rely  upon  suffi¬ 
cient  sales  to  compensate  the  publisher,  whose 
chief  object  is  the  profits  of  his  business.  It  is 
doing  private  publishers  no  injustice  to  say,  that 
they  are  engaged  in  the  business  with  reference  to 
its  profits.  It  is  their  business,  and  they  should  and 
must  make  it  pay,  not  only  expenses,  but  a  remunera¬ 
tive  profit.  Publishing  societies  exist  with  much  less 
reference  to  the  pecuniary  profits  of  the  business,  and 
much  more  reference  to  the  necessities  of  the  cause 
they  would  promote.  If  any  profit  accrues  to  the 
society,  it  makes  no  man  rich  in  this  world’s  goods, 
though,  as  these  profits  are  devoted  to  the  further¬ 
ance  of  the  cause,  they  make  many  rich  in  the  truth. 
In  these  circumstances,  societies  are  under  no  temp- 


24 


tations  in  the  direction  of  profits,  and  may,  as  they 
should  and  do,  publish  with  reference  to  the  good  of 
the  cause.  Occasionally,  they  issue  books  that  pri¬ 
vate  publishers  would  be  glad  to  have.  But  it  is 
obvious  that  many  are  necessary,  and  are  being  con¬ 
stantly  issued,  that  can  only  be  brought  out  by 
benevolent  societies.  Perhaps  they  are  able  works, 
written  by  authors  who  have  not  yet  achieved  a 
reputation ;  or  they  may  relate  to  unpopular  topics, 
none  the  less  important  for  that.  The  tract  enter¬ 
prise,  for  instance,  is  not  pecuniarily  remunerative, 
and,  consequently,  the  societies  have  a  monopoly  of 
it.  It  is  notorious  with  publishers,  that  there  is  very 
little  money  in  suitable  Sabbath  School  books,  and 
the  societies,  hence,  have  almost  a  monopoly  of 
these.  Especially  is  there  no  money  in  denomina¬ 
tional  Sabbath  School  books,  and  hence  the  societies 
have  an  entire  monopoly  of  them.  Sheldon  &  Co., 
an  excellent  Baptist  firm  in  New  York,  have  recently 
advertised  “  a  Baptist  Sunday  School  library but 
it  is  only  an  experiment,  which  they  will  be  glad  to 
abandon,  if  there  is  anything  to  be  learned  from  the 
past  experience  of  publishers ;  and  even  in  regard  to 
their  first  series  of  books,  they  are  obliged  so  to 
construct  it  that  it  has  no  denominational  value,  and 
to  advertise  it  as  “  suitable  for  any  denomination  of 
Christians.”  Indeed,  I  am  informed  that  a  majority 
of  the  books  of  their  “  Baptist  library”  to  be  “pub* 
lished  under  the  sanction  of  a  committee  of  Baptist 
pastors,”  are  bought  in  sheets  of  the  Methodist  Book 
Concern,  and  are  the  same  books,  word  for  word, 
with  Sheldon  &  Co.’s  imprint,  and  that  some  of 


25 


tliem  cost  us  more  than  if  bought  of  the  Methodist 
Book  Concern. 

An  intelligent  article  in  the  New  York  Examiner , 
of  Jan.  20,  1859,  shows  that  as  far  back  as  books 
can  be  traced,  beyond  the  art  of  printing,  particu¬ 
larly  religious  books,  have  had  to  be  furnished  to  a 
great  extent  “  on  the  plan  of  cheap  publications,  the 
expense  being  met  by  interested  men.”  Often,  the 
entire  expense  is  met  thus,  to  enable  some  parties  to 
freely  donate  them,  and  others  to  purchase  them,  and 
to  furnish  to  others  still,  an  inducement  in  very 
cheap  publications,  to  buy  what  they  otherwise,  in 
their  want  of  interest,  would  not. 

But  even  in  regard  to  the  very  last  and  most  popu¬ 
lar  books,  there  is  fallacy  in  the  remark — 

“  If  a  hook  will  be  read,  it  will  pay  for  itself ;  if  it  will  not 
be  read,  there  is  no  object  in  publishing  it.” 

Take  as  an  illustration,  u  The  Moral  Dignity  of 
the  Missionary  Enterprise,”  originally  published  by 
Lincoln  &  Edmands,  in  pamphlet  form,  for  twenty- 
five  cents,  as  low  as  it  would  be  published  by  a 
private  house  now.  The  Publication  Society,  the 
American  Tract  Society,  etc.,  early  put  it  into  their 
series  of  tracts.  In  the  Publication  Society’s  series, 
it  has  twenty-eight  pages,  which,  at  fifteen  pages  for 
one  cent,  makes  it  cost  less  than  two  cents.  The 
circulation  of  this  work  by  private  publishers  bears 
no  comparison  whatever  with  that  of  societies ;  nor 
can  any  one  presume,  that  if  the  societies  had  not 

3 


26 


existed,  private  publishers  would  have  done  greatly 
better  by  it. 

But  proceeds  the  pamphlet : 

“  It  may  be  said  that  hooks  in  this  way  are  sold  at  a  less 
price.  The  fact  is  widely  disputed ;  but  grant  it,  it  is  only  a 
delusion.  The  society  cannot  manufacture  a  booh  at  a  less 
cost  than  a  publisher.  If  the  book  is  sold  below  the  cost,  then 
we  pay  a  part  of  the  cost  when  we  purchase  the  book,  and  the 
remainder  in  a  subscription  or  endowment.  ” 

u  The  fact  is  widely  disputed,”  I  remark,  only  by 
those  who  have  given  little  attention  to  the  subject. 
The  price  on  a  single  book  may  be  so  little  less  as  to 
attract  but  slight  attention,  and  at  the  same  time  the 
aggregate  gain  to  the  public  be  very  large.  Besides, 
the  comparison  may  have  been  made  in  books  of  a 
very  different  character,  as  it  regards  the  cost  of 
manufacture  and  extent  of  sale.  In  this  way  conclu¬ 
sions  may  be  reached  which  are  by  no  means  correct. 
The  book  for  which  you  pay  most  may  be  the  cheaper 
when  you  take  into  account  all  the  facts.  It  is  ob¬ 
vious  that  a  society  having  no  rents  to  pay,  no  prin¬ 
cipal  or  partners  to  enrich,  and  whose  profits,  if  any 
do  accrue,  are  added  to  their  facilities  of  business, 
ought  to  make  cheap  books,  and  the  facts  in  the  case 
are  ample  evidence  that  they  do. 

Does  it  follow,  I  ask,  that  because  11  a  society  can¬ 
not  manufacture  a  book  at  less  cost  than  a  publisher,” 
that  it  cannot  legitimately  sell  for  less  ?  It  can  still 
sell  them  cheaper  to  the  same  extent  that  it  charges 
less  for  an  item  of  some  importance  in  the  book  busi- 


27 


ness  outside  of  the  manufacture,  namely,  the  profit 
which  is  to  enrich  the  private  publisher . 

And  then  the  society  has  the  advantage  of  the  pri¬ 
vate  publisher  in  the  endowment,  and  its  cheapness 
here  is  no  “  delusion,”  after  all.  The  object  of  an 
endowment  is,  obviously,  not  chiefly  to  make  cheap 
books  for  those  who  have  paid  it,  else  it  were,  indeed, 
a  remarkable  “  delusion.”  No  man  would  be  simple¬ 
ton  enough  to  give  five  thousand  dollars  to  a  society 
that  he  might  buy  one  hundred  dollars’  worth  of  its 
books  (perhaps  all  or  more  than  he  will  ever  buy  of  it), 
at  a  low  figure.  But  his  five  thousand  dollars  may  ena¬ 
ble  and  induce  five  thousand  men,  who  never  gave  a 
penny  and  never  may,  through  poverty  or  indifference, 
to  buy  cheap  books.  An  endowment  is  simply  a 
benevolent  donation  to  the  cause  of  cheap  publications. 

But  it  is  added : 

“bio  society  can  have  as  good  facilities  for  circulating  books 
as  a  good  publisher  who  has  his  correspondents  in  every  city 
and  town  throughout  the  country.” 

What  is  there  to  prevent  a  society  from  having  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  thing?  Obviously,  nothing.  And 
then  the  society  has  facilities  that  no  private  publisher 
can  have,  in  its  colporteurs,  and  in  the  pastors  and 
members  of  the  churches  whose  society  it  is,  and 
in  whose  profits  (usefulness)  they  have  an  equal 
interest. 

Supposing  that  private  publishers  could  do  all  these 
things  as  well  as  societies  (which  I  think  it  is  seen  is 
by  no  means  true),  there  remains  one  thing  they  will 


28 


not  u  undertake,”  namely,  the  gratuitous  distributions 
of  societies.  They  will  no  more  undertake  to  collect 
from  the  benevolent  the  means  of  doing  this,  than  to 
give  it  themselves.  I  do  not  say  this  to  reproach 
them, — the  thing  is  simply  impossible. 

As  there  appears  to  be  some  necessity  for  publica¬ 
tion  societies,  so  there  is  that  they  be  moderately  en¬ 
dowed,  the  only  remaining  objection  that  the  pam¬ 
phlet  suggests  to  the  Publication  Society : 

“  It  has  already  received  pretty  large  investments,  and  now 
asks  of  ns  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  addition.  This  is 
certainly  a  very  large  demand.  Now,  setting  aside  this  fact 
which  all  experience  teaches,  that  no  benevolent  association 
should  ever  hold  large  endowments,  and  thus  be  exempted  from 
the  control  of  the  denomination,  we  may  properly  ask,  Could 
not  this  work  be  done  more  economically  ?  ” 

After  attempting  to  show  that  it  can  be  so  done 
by  private  publishers,  with  what  success  we  have  seen, 
it  is  remarked : 

“  At  any  rate,  before  we  go  into  so  expensive  an  undertaking, 
all  the  facts  should  be  collected  and  a  wise  and  deliberate  de¬ 
cision  formed,  from  a  careful  examination  of  them  all.  We  have 
no  money  to  throw  away,  and  none  to  invest  in  doubtful  exper¬ 
iments.” 

On  what  grounds,  I  beg  to  ask,  is  this  last  saga¬ 
cious  suggestion  made  ?  The  movement  to  raise 
$100,000  additional  capital  had  its  incipiency  (as  its 
oft-repeated  history  assures  us)  with  business  men  of 
much  more  than  ordinary  ability,  as  long  ago  as  A.  D. 


29 


1853.  The  plan  first  was  to  raise  only  $30,000  addi¬ 
tional  capital,  but  at  the  solicitation  of  the  same  class 
of  men  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  it  was  decided 
to  increase  the  sum  to  $100,000,  of  which  not 
more  than  $30,000  should  be  devoted  to  a  building 
fund.  After  contributing  largely,  at  different  peri¬ 
ods,  to  the  permanent  funds  already  secured,  the 
members  of  the  Board  stand  pledged  to  this  endow¬ 
ment  to  the  amount  of  $30,000,  or  more  than  one 
fourth  of  the  whole  sum  proposed,  one  of  them  giv¬ 
ing  “  $8,500,”  one  u  $6,000,”  and  one  u  $5,000.”  For 
several  years  this  movement  has  been  under  consid¬ 
eration  in  the  Board  of  the  society  and  in  the  socie¬ 
ty’s  annual  meetings,  and  in  neither  of  these  places 
has  it  met  with  any  opposition.  We  were  recently 
informed  officially  that  the  subscriptions  to  this  fund 
have  reached  $70,000,  and  are  so  far  advanced  that 
some  of  the  subscribers  to  it  have  paid  $10,000  on  it, 
when  they  were  only  held  on  condition  that  the  whole 
sum  was  secured.  Is  it  a  suitable  recognition  of 
either  the  benevolence  or  wisdom  of  the  brethren 
who  have  done  all  this,  at  this  late  day  to  suggest 
that  before  this  u  doubtful  experiment  is  made  ”  there 
should  be  a  “  careful  examination  of  the  facts,  be¬ 
cause  we  have,  no  money  to  throw  away,  and  none  to 
invest  in  doubtful  experiments.”  Does  it  follow  that  all 
that  is  here  advised  has  not  been  done,  and  u  that  facts 
have  not  been  collected,”  that  some  men  never  dreamed 
of,  because  they  have  not  been  sufficiently  interested, 
to  know  what  others  are  perfectly  familiar  with ! 

3  * 


30 


Just  prior  to  this  movement,  when  the  society  had 
existed  as  a  “  necessity  of  the  denomination  ”  for 
thirty  years,  the  whole  amount  of  its  capital,  and  this 
locked  up  in  its  building,  stereotj^pe  plates  and  books, 
amounted  to  just  $69,095.50  ;*  and  this  Dr.  Wayland 
calls  “  pretty  large  investments.”  I  cannot  imagine 
how  he  comes  to  any  such  conclusion ;  it  surely  is  not 
reached  by  comparing  it  with  the  endowments  of 
Brown  University,  or  any  of  the  endowed  publication 
societies  of  the  land.  To  say  nothing  of  the  American 
Tract  Society,  etc.,  our  Congregational  friends  have 
invested,  in  two  local  denominational  societies  in 
Boston,  namely,  the  Congregational  Board  of  Publi¬ 
cation  and  the  Massachusetts  Sunday  School  Society, 
$87,000.  The  fact  is,  that  sum  was  entirely  unworthy 
of  our  great  and  growing  denomination.  But  of  the 
proposition  to  raise  $100,000  it  is  claimed  —  “  This  is 
certainly  a  very  large  demand.”  Not  at  all,  I  answer, 
if  it  is  compared  with  other  endowments  for  the  same 
or  no  more  important  objects,  and  particularly  if  it  is 
compared  with  the  necessities  of  the  denomination 
and  the  world. 

But  suppose  it  were  large,  it  is  no  u  demand  ”  upon 
any  man.  If  brethren  think  it  is  no  larger  than  they  can 
afford,  and  no  larger  a  sum  than  they  ought  to  conse¬ 
crate  to  this  object,  and  if  it  promises  a  tithe  of  the 
usefulness  they  anticipate,  who  shall  object  and  dimin¬ 
ish  their  prospects  of  usefulness  by  unfounded  and 
unnecessary  doubts  ?  But  we  are  gravely  reminded 
of  the  fact : 


#  See  History  of  the  Am.  Bap.  Bub.  Soc.,  page  243. 


31 


“  Which  all  experience  teaches,  that  no  benevolent  association 
should  ever  hold  large  endowments  and  thus  be  exempted  from 
the  control  of  the  denomination.” 

I  beg  to  suggest  that  this  does  not  seem  a  case  of 
that  kind  at  all.  The  proposition  is  not  so  to  endow 
this  institution  as  to  put  it  into  any  such  dangerous 
position,  but  merely  to  furnish  it  with  working  capital, 
not  one  dollar  of  it  to  be  in  the  nature  of  an  endow¬ 
ment  which  can  in  any  way  make  the  society  dan¬ 
gerous. 

Very  much  has  been  said,  of  late,  of  societies  “  ex¬ 
empted  from  the  control  of  the  denomination,”  Was 
there  ever  a  Baptist  society  of  that  description  ?  I 
have  looked  in  vain  into  our  history,  “from  John 
the  Baptist  until  now,”  for  the  evidence  that  we  are 
in  any  danger  in  this  direction.  Certain  I  am  that 
we  have  no  society  at  the  present  time  that  could  live 
long  enough  to  do  any  harm,  if  forsaken  by  the  de¬ 
nomination.  The  Publication  Society,  at  all  events, 
need  not  be  suspected  in  this  direction.*  Any  church 
may  send  as  many  delegates  to  its  annual  meetings  as 
it  pleases ;  for,  besides  members  made  in  other  ways^ 
“  Any  person  may  become  a  member  of  this  society 
by  paying  annually  the  sum  of  two  dollars  or  more.” 
“  Auxiliary  societies  shall  be  allowed  and  are  re¬ 
quested  to  send  one  delegate  to  this  society  to  repre¬ 
sent  them,  who  shall  have  the  privilege  of  a  member.” 
“  A  majority  of  the  Board  shall  be  laymen.”  “  The 
meetings  of  the  Board  of  Managers  are  open  to  any 
brethren  at  all  times.” 


*  See  the  Society’s  Constitution. 


32 


It  is  strangely  inconsistent  in  Dr.  Wayland  to  take 
the  view  he  does  of  the  American  Baptist  Publication 
Society ;  when  for  years  he  has  been  so  warmly  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  American  Tract  Society,  for  the  former 
differs  from  the  latter  only  in  that  it  is  a  Baptist 
society.  All  the  arguments  of  the  pamphlet  apply 
with  equal  force  to  either  society,  and,  to  be  consis¬ 
tent,  Dr.  Wayland  should  as  much  object  to  the  one 
as  the  other.  It  is  true  that  he  has  fallen  out  with 
the  Tract  Society  of  New  York,  but  it  is  on  account 
of  slavery,  and  not  on  any  of  the  grounds  upon  which 
he  objects  to  the  Publication  Society.  He  appears 
still  in  connection  with  the  American  Tract  Society, 
Boston,  as  President  of  an  auxiliary  society.  Why 
is  not  a  Baptist  Publication  Society  as  desirable  and 
unobjectionable  as  any  other  ? 

THE  AMERICAN  BAPTIST  HOME  MISSION  SOCIETY,  AND 
THE  AMERICAN  AND  FOREIGN  BIBLE  SOCIETY. 

A  review  of  Dr.  Wayland’s  pamphlet  requires  but 
little  in  relation  to  either  of  these  societies.  It  is 
suitable,  however,  to  remark  that  his  results  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  Home  Mission  Society,  as  compared  with 
other  societies,  do  not  appear  to  be  logical.  It  is 
not  obvious  just  what  he  wishes  here;  nor  does 
there  seem  any  reason  for  the  preference  he  ap¬ 
parently  gives  this  society. 

I  must  not  be  understood  to  object  to  the  good 
things  said  of  it.  I  could  honestly  say  much  more. 
But  there  seems  no  reason,  in  Dr.  Wayland’s  theory, 
for  any  preference  for  it  over  other  societies. 


33 


“  Our  Home  Mission  Society  has  done  a  noble  work.” 

It  is  granted ;  but  it  is  equally  true  of  the  other 
societies.  Beyond  all  question,  the  Foreign  Mission 
Society  has  as  great  claims  in  this  manner  as  any 
other. 

\  ( 

“  Our  regular  and  established  organization  for  the  promotion 
of  this  work  (Home  Missions)  is  our  Home  Mission  Society.” 

This  is  by  no  means  obvious.  The  Publication 
Society  is  older,  and  better  endowed,  and  just  as 
much  a  regular  societ}7-,  and  has  been  eminently  use¬ 
ful  at  home  as  well  as  abroad. 

«  The  Home  Mission  has  stood  the  test  of  time  better  by  far 
than  any  of  our  organizations.” 

We  look  in  vain  in  the  pamphlet  and  elsewhere  for 
any  evidence  of  this  proposition.  Two  of  the  so¬ 
cieties  are  older — the  Foreign  Missionary  Society 
by  eighteen  years,  and  the  Publication  Society  by 
eight  years,  and  they  still  survive.  The  latter  of 
them  is  now  more  prosperous  than  ever  before.  As 
far  as  difficulties,  misunderstandings,  differences  of 
opinion,  are  concerned,  the  Home  Mission  Society  has 
enjoyed  no  exemption,  to  say  the  least,  which  gives 
it  any  preference  over  others. 

“  Here  (in  Home  Missions)  we  seem  to  need  some  central 
arrangement  that  shall  be  a  medium  of  intercourse  between  the 
parties.  We  need  some  office  to  which  our  brethren  in  the 
new  states  can  apply  for  aid,  to  which  can  be  sent  the  contribu¬ 
tions  of  the  churches,  and  from  which  also  brethren  desiring  to 


34 


settle  in  the  West  may  seek  for  information.  Something  of  this 
kind  in  our  present  condition  may  be  indispensable.  We  may 
need  some  man  or  men  who  shall  be  always  familiar  with  the 
ever-changing  character  of  the  West,  so  as  to  disburse  our  aid  to 
the  best  advantage,  and  only  where  it  is  needed.” 

Here  we  have  a  concession  of  all  we  claim,  and  a 
refutation  of  most  of  the  pamphlet.  Pray  what  is 
our  Home  Mission  Society  but  this  ?  It  needs  no 
“  radical  reformer  ”  to  be  just  what  it  is  here  con¬ 
ceded  we  must  have.  But  the  most  remarkable  part 
of  this  position  is,  that  we  only  need  this  for  Home 
Missions.  Why  not  just  as  much — aye,  why  not 
more  for  Foreign  Missions?  Can  anyone  tell?  It 
were  easy  to  show  that  if  Home  Missions  need  this, 
Foreign  Missions  do  as  much  more,  as  they  are  farther 
away,  and  attended,  in  numerous  ways,  with  more 
difficulty. 

We  come  now  to  Hr.  Wayland’s  substitute  for 
the  societies. 

What  advantages  has  it  over  them,  even  though 
they  have  worked  as  badly  as  he  claims  ?  It  should 
have  very  decided  advantages  to  justify  its  sub¬ 
stitution,  for  it  involves  a  large  amount  of  dif¬ 
ficulties,  seen  and  unseen,  to  make  so  thorough  a 
revolution  as  it  contemplates.  It  is  not  proposed  to 
bring  all  the  objection  possible  to  the  substitute,  but 
merely  to  show  that  it  has  no  advantages  over  the 
societies,  as  far  as  the  imperfections  are  concerned, 
which,  it  is  claimed,  are  incident  to  them. 

Here  is  the  substitute : 


35 


In  reflecting  upon  this  subject,  it  naturally  occurs  to  us 
that  we  possess  one  form  of  organization  which  appears  per¬ 
fectly  adapted  to  our  character  and  principles.  It  is  the  ordi¬ 
nary  Baptist  Association.” 

First,  the  Baptist  Association  has  no  advantage 
over  the  Baptist  Society  as  to  any  divine  origin  or 
apostolic  precedent.  Suppose  we  concede : 

“  That  there  were  no  missionary  boards,  and  no  central 
organizations  in  the  times  of  the  apostles.” 

It  is  equally  true  that  .there  were  no  “Baptist 
associations.”  If  there  is  any  force  in  the  query  of 
the  pamphlet : 

“  Why  should  we  need  such  organizations  now?  ” 

as  it  relates  to  the  societies,  why  not  as  it  relates 
to  the  associations  ?  If  it  has  pleased  the  Head  of 
the  Church  to  leave  such  matters  to  the  churches,  and 
they  deem  it  best  to  have  both  societies  and  associa¬ 
tions,  why  is  not  one  as  legitimate  as  the  other  ? 

I  am  unable  to  see  either  how  associations  are 
any  more  “  natural,”  even  to  Baptists,  than  societies. 
It  is  said  all  regular  Baptist  churches  have,  as  a  rule, 
associations ;  so  they  all  have  societies.  Baptist 
churches  are  under  no  special  necessity  to  join  asso¬ 
ciations  any  more  than  societies.  They  are  equally 
free  in  regard  to  each  and  all  such  provisions  for 
their  happiness  and  usefulness. 

It  does  not  matter  which  is  the  oldest  provision  of 
Baptists,  nor  are  we  able  to  say.  The  age  of  any 
.  principle  proves  nothing  which  is  binding,  unless  it 


36 


furnishes  apostolic  precedent.  And  what  is  an 
association,  after  all,  but  a  society  ? 

Suppose  the  pamphlet’s  plan  carried  out,  and  our 
societies,  so  called,  abolished,  and  their  work  turned 
over  to  the  different  associations.  We  have  only 
destroyed  a  small  number  of  societies  for  a  large 
number ;  or,  if  you  please,  converted  the  associations 
into  societies,  if,  indeed,  they  were  not  just  as  much 
societies  before  the  change. 

Consequently  the  only  real  question  here  is,  Has  a 
large  number  of  small  societies  any  advantage  over  a 
small  number  of  large  ones  ?  or,  in  other  words,  Have 
some  forty  societies,  called  associations,  any  advan¬ 
tages  for  missionary  purposes,  over  four  societies,  so 
called,  for  the  same  purpose  ?  This  would  seem  to 
add  to  the  “  complication  ”  so  much  objected  to,  im¬ 
measurably.  It  would  also  add  to  the  “  expense  ”  in 
the  same  way. 

One  very  important  point  the  pamphlet  desires  to 
gain  is  — 

“  To  bring  the  benefactor  and  the  recipient  into  the  closest 
possible  contact.” 

We  concede  the  desirableness  of  this,  and  are  glad 
that  attention  is  turned  to  it.  It  is  right  that  the 
societies  be  the  servants  of  the  churches,  and  not  the 
reverse  of  this.  The  church  is  the  legitimate  mission¬ 
ary  organization,  and  should  suffer  nothing  to  over¬ 
ride  her  in  this  work.  Not  only  should  churches  feel 
this  responsibility,  but  individual  members.  They  can 


37 


no  more  merge  their  responsibility  in  the  church,  than 
the  church  in  the  society.  Let  this  position  become 
more  and  more  popular  with  us,  for  it  is  a  sound  one. 

We  are,  however,  unable  to  see  how  the  Baptist 
Association  is  any  improvement  upon  the  Baptist 
Society  in  this  respect,  or  how  any  considerable 
change  in  the  societies  is  necessary  to  this  object. 
If  we  mistake  not,  the  societies  are  u  more  sinned 
against  than  sinning  ”  in  regard  to  this  matter.  They 
were  designed  to  be,  and  really  are,  what  they  only  can 
legitimately  be,  namely,  the  church’s  own  provision 
to  aid  her  in  her  missionary  work ;  to  furnish  her 
facilities  of  doing  what  she  can  best  do  in  this  wayt 
They  are  part  and  parcel  of  the  church,  and  so  con¬ 
sidered  by  their  friends.  But  unfortunately  some 
parties  have  come  to  look  upon  them  in  another  light, 
as  extraneous  to  the  church.  But  the  societies,  in 
their  constitutions,  in  their  history,  in  their  work,  take 
another  view  of  the  matter.  The  Publication  Society, 
for  instance,  has  successfully  “  labored  to  bring  the 
benefactor  and  recipient  into  the  closest  possible 
contact ;  ”  and  how  any  organization  can  do  more 
than  it  has  in  this  way,  I  am  unable  to  see.  It  has, 
among  other  similar  arrangements,  a  plan  by  which  any 
individual  or  company,  by  providing  the  salary  of  a 
colporteur,  may  have  one  assigned  them,  or  one  ap¬ 
pointed  of  their  own  nomination,  with  whom  they  may 
be  in  correspondence.  They  may  have  his  services 
where  they  please,  and  have  his  reports,  detailing  his 
work,  his  trials  and  success. 

4 


38 


The  same  is  true,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  of  the 
other  societies.  The  Missionary  Union  has  recently 
sent  out  in  this  way  Dr.  Binney,  who  is  understood  to 
be  not  only  their  missionary,  but  that  of  the  three 
brethren  who  have  guaranteed  to  pay  his  salary  and 
expenses.  There  is  nothing  more  desirable  than  this 
for  those  who  cannot  be  missionaries  themselves, 
who  of  course  are  the  masses  everywhere. 

But  says  the  pamphlet : 

“  Now,  a  central  organization  is  at  variance  with  these  princi¬ 
ples.  It  keeps  the  two  parties  as  far  apart  as  possible,  by 
placing  between  them  a  vast  number  of  intermediate  agencies. 
We  employ  a  succession  of  paid  almoners,  instead  of  being  al¬ 
moners  ourselves,”  &c. 

It  is  an  exaggeration  of  the  evil  to  say,  “  there  is  a 
vast  number  of  intermediate  agencies.”  But  if  it  were 
not,  the  association  has  no  advantage  over  the  society 
in  this  respect,  or  at  least,  not  enough  to  affect  the 
principle  involved ;  nor  can  you  devise  any  thing  short 
of  sending  every  person  direct  to  the  heathen  or  the 
home  field,  which  is  of  course  an  impossibility.  As 
far  as  all  this  is  concerned,  the  association  is  a  cen¬ 
tra!  organization,  differing  from  the  national  one  only 
in  that  it  is  smaller  and  sectional. 

But  says  the  pamphlet,  persistently  following  up 
this  favorite  theory : 

■“  If  this  could  be  accomplished,  we  should  be  at  once  relieved 
of  all  the  machinery  of  boards,  committees,  secretaries,  and 
agents,  inasmuch  as  every  church  or  cluster  of  churches  would 
be  all  this  to  itself.” 


39 


The  author  does  not  inform  us  how  u  every  church 
or  cluster  of  churches  would  be  all  this  to  itself,”  and 
it  seems  absurd  to  claim  it.  The  pamphlet  goes  on 
to  say: 

“  Some  of  these  duties  might  he  required  in  the  affairs  of 
each  individual  organization,  but  the  labor  would  be  so  light, 
that  probably  in  every  case  it  would  be  performed  gratuitously.” 

But  where  is  the  evidence  that li  the  labor  would  be 
so  light  that  it  would  probably  in  every  case  be  done 
gratuitously  ?  ”  Suppose  this  condition  of  the  new 
scheme  were  not  realized ;  suppose  the  money  must 
be  raised  by  agents  —  a  very  probable  contingency, 
for  I  see  nothing  in  the  scheme  likely  to  put  an  end 
to  selfishness,  and  I  presume  our  brethren  would 
remain  very  much  such  men  as  they  are  now,*  and 
suppose  there  should  be  a  large  amount  of  work  to 
be  done  u  in  each  church  or  cluster  of  churches,” 
requiring  all  of  some  brother’s  time,  who  would 
be  under  the  necessity  of  being  paid  for  his  labor,  — 
and  these  are  by  far  the  most  probable  things  in  the 
case  —  would  one  secretary  or  agent  in  each  of  forty 
associations  be  any  better  than  forty  secretaries  or 
agents  in  four  societies  ? 

But,  persists  the  pamphlet : 

“  Should  a  true  and  earnest  missionary  spirit  be  awakened 
among  us,  every  one  would  rejoice  in  an  opportunity  to  serve 
the  cause  as  far  as  he  was  able,  without  remuneration,”  etc. 


40 


But  suppose  this  sudden  elevation  of  human  nature, 
or  of  divine  grace  in  the  heart,  did  not  result  from 
this  new  plan, — then  what  ?  If  men  were  angels,  then 
any  system  of  benevolence  would  answer ;  though 
even  then,  I  presume  some  effort  and  wisdom  would 
be  necessary.  But  there  is  not  the  least  probability 
of  any  such  change  as  is  thus  supposed,  and  hence  it 
is  idle  to  found  plans  upon  it.  It  is  worse  than  build¬ 
ing  upon  sand  — -  it  is  building  upon  nothing. 

There  is  an  excellent  opportunity  now ,  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  present  societies,  for  gratuitous  labor  for 
missions.  A  large  amount  of  it  is  done  by  members 
of  Boards,  and  Treasurers  and  Recording  Secretaries. 
But  it  is  found  necessary  to  have,  besides,  Secretaries 
and  Agents  devoting  all  their  time  to  a  laborious, 
thankless  task.  Somehow,  these  brethren  are  gen¬ 
erally  poor,  and  must  receive  from  these  sources  a 
subsistence.  Suppose  some  of  our  good  brethren  who 
have  the  means  of  living  without  a  salary,  should  take 
these  secretaryships  and  agencies  gratuitously  ?  They 
certainly  would  be  doing  a  good  work.  If  they  were 
agents,  and  obliged  to  raise  the  money  for  missions 
from  church  to  church,  they  would  probably  get  more 
correct  ideas  of  the  difficulties  in  this  work. 

But  the  pamphlet  not  only  makes  too  much  of  asso¬ 
ciations  as  it  expects  them  to  become  in  its  new  plan, 
but  as  they  are  and  ever  have  been.  It  claims  that : 

“  Here  (in  associations)  we  have  no  collisions,  for  there  is  noth¬ 
ing  to  strive  about ;  ”  and  that  here  we  are  “  always  success¬ 
ful” 


41 


These  are  certainly  singular  claims.  Why  should 
the  same  persons  be  less  liable  to  misunderstand  each 
other  and  fall  out  by  the  way  in  an  association  than 
in  a  society?  Obviously  only  as  they  have  fewer  and 
less  difficult  questions  in  the  one  case  than  in  the 
other.  But  in  transferring  to  associations  missionary 
operations,  you  transfer  the  questions  incident  to 
missions.  Still  it  would  be  just  as  true : 

“  That  some  of  us  believe  the  kingdom  of  Christ  may  be  most 
successfully  promoted  by  means  of  schools,” 

and  that  all  other  similar  questions  would  come  up 
and  lead  to  the  same  results.  These  questions  would 
still  have  to  be  settled  by  u  majorities,”  and  “  minori¬ 
ties  ”  would  have  to  submit. 

Nor  is  this  difficulty  avoided  by  confining  the  work 
to  “individual  churches A  church  may  have  in  it  the 
representatives  of  all  the  shades  of  belief  possible  to 
any  society.  It  is  no  unheard-of  thing  for  churches 
or  associations  to  have  warm,  protracted  contests 
which  must  be  finally  settled  by  the  vote  of  the  ma¬ 
jority.  Carry  out  the  plan  of  the  pamphlet  and  abol¬ 
ish  societies,  and  confine  missionary  operations  to 
either  associations  or  churches,  and  still  it  will  be  true 
as  now : 

“  that  while  every  disciple  desires  to  serve  his  Master,  no  one  likes 
to  be  controlled  by  his  brethren  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he 
shall  do  it.” 

There  is  no  plan  of  missions  which  will  answer  the 
purpose  of  men  “  who  do  not  like  to  be  controlled  by 

4  * 


42 


majorities,”  except  the  unnatural,  impracticable  one 
suggested  by  the  pamphlet  in  the  remark : 

“Nay,  individual  members  are  able  to  support  missionaries.” 

To  this  all  must  come  11  who  do  not  like  to  be  con¬ 
trolled  by  majorities,”  for  if  they  associate  any  num¬ 
ber  of  persons  with  them,  there  is  a  chance  for 
difference  of  opinion  which  must  be  settled  by  vote. 

But  must  it  be  conceded  that  there  is  no  bond  of 
union  among  Baptists : 

11  That  under  their  conditions  it  must  be  difficult,  if  not  impos¬ 
sible,  to  carry  on  a  centralizing  organization  of  any  extent,  for 
any  considerable  length  of  time,  efficiently  ?  ” 

If  so,  then  farewell  to  our  grand  schemes  of  the 
world’s  conversion  by  the  use  of  means ;  for  solitary, 
individual  effort,  however  important  its  mission,  is  not 
adapted  to  grand  enterprises. 

In  another  connection  1  have  shown  how  we  should 
regard  the  conflicts  among  us,  of  which  the  pamphlet 
makes  so  much,  and  so  much  more  than  the  facts  call 
for.  Our  entire  history  in  the  past  shows,  as  it 
will  show  in  the  future,  that  we  are  not  the  impracti¬ 
cable  people  of  the  pamphlet. 

Not  only  are  the  claims  set  up  for  associations  over 
societies  singular  in  the  particulars  just  noticed,  but  in 
the  claim  that  they  are  “  always  successful .”  We  are 
all  familiar  with  the  “  success  ”  of  “  associations  ”  in 
promoting  missions  within  their  own  limits.  How 


43 


often  has  the  Home  Mission  Society  been  informed  by 
the  vote  of  some  association  that  it  mnst  not  extend 
its  operations  into  their  field,  as  they  design  to  pro¬ 
vide  for  it  and  can  do  no  more.  By  the  notorious  facts 
of  this  kind  we  are  not  left  to  conjecture  how  “  suc¬ 
cessful  ”  associations  would  be  in  carrying  on  Foreign 
Missions.  Take,  as  an  illustration,  the  Warren  Asso¬ 
ciation  in  Rhode  Island,  to  which  the  author  of  the 
pamphlet  belongs,  and  it  is  more  than  a  fair  represen¬ 
tation  of  similar  bodies  throughout  the  land.  It  has 
done  something  for  Rhode  Island,  but  has  it  done 
what  it  ought,  or  what  some  of  its  members  have  de¬ 
sired,  or  what  holds  out  any  considerable  promise 
that  it  would  do  much  for  the  heathen  if  left  to  itself? 
Has  it  had  no  difficulties  in  doing  what  it  has  done  for 
Rhode  Island,  so  that  it  may,  safely  to  the  cause,  cut 
loose  from  the  denomination,  and  not  only  undertake 
to  provide  for  its  own  territory,  but  for  missions  in 
the  West  and  in  heathen  lands?  With  as  excellent 
associations  to  provide  for  it  as  the  Warren  and  the 
Providence,  and  as  long  as  it  has  enjoyed  the  care  of 
the  former  of  these,  Rhode  Island  is  to-day  in  sad 
need  of  the  sympathy  of  some  Home  Mission  Society. 
The  same  is  true  of  every  State  in  the  Union,  not  ex¬ 
cepting  even  Massachusetts. 

But,  according  to  the  pamphlet,  we  do  not  need 
even  associations  to  support  missionaries : 

“  Many  of  our  wealthy  churches  might  support  a  single 
mission  ;  others,  and  there  are  hundreds  of  them  —  nay,  indi 
vidual  members,  who  are  able  to  support  a  single  missionary.” 


44 


All  of  this  is  undoubtedly  true ;  but  does  it  follow 
that  it  would  be  safe,  on  account  of  this  fact,  to 
u  abandon  all  centralizing  organizations  ?  ”  If 
churches  and  individuals  are  able  to  support  single 
missions  without  a  missionary  society,  so  they  are 
with  one.  There  is  nothing  to  prevent  any  church 
or  individual  from  doing  this  now  through  the  Mis- 
sionary  Union,  and  much  in  its  existence  to  aid  and 
induce  them.  The  number  of  churches,  and  particu¬ 
larly  individuals,  who  contribute  enough  to  sustain  a 
single  missionary,  with  all  the  inducements  held  out 
by  the  Missionary  Union,  is  very  small.  Take  away 
the  Union,  and  you  greatly  increase  the  expense  to 
the  church  or  individual,  and  augment  the  difficulties, 
in  ways  too  numerous  and  obvious  to  mention,  beyond 
measure.  It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  a  great  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  churches  do  not  provide  a  comfortable 
support  for  their  own  pastor ;  and  that  many  of  those 
that  do,  raise  the  money  with  great  difficulty.  As  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  fact,  the  state  of  things  at  home  is  sad  to  the 
last  degree,  as  it  regards  the  support  of  pastors ; 
and  now  to  suppose  that  on  account  of  the  ability  of 
churches  and  individuals  to  sustain  missionaries,  we 
may  safety  turn  this  whole  work  over  to  them,  is 
simply  ridiculous. 

Who  would  go  on  a  mission  to  the  heathen  to  be 
dependent  upon  one  church  of  a  thousand  for  his  sup¬ 
port,  or  upon  any  one  individual  ?  If  a  missionary  has 
the  means  of  living  himself,  or  if  he  has  sufficient  faith  to 
go  forth  unprovided  for,  it  is  very  well  for  him  to  go 
independently  of  all  men ;  but  if  he  is  like  ordinary 


45 


missionaries,  he  will  demand  some  certain  support 
before  he  starts.  To  any  church,  or  individual,  pro¬ 
posing  to  sustain  him,  he  will  be  likely  to  say :  Are 
you  aware  of  what  is  involved  in  the  support  of  a 
missionary  to  the  heathen?  The  salary  is  a  small 
thing  comparatively.  The  outfit,  the  expense  of 
getting  to  the  field,  of  returning  from  time  to  time,  the 
providing  for  the  children  and  widow  in  case  of 
death,  the  difficulty  and  expense  of  remittances,  etc., 
are  difficulties  in  comparison  with  which  the  salary 
is  as  nothing.  The  support  is  sufficiently  precarious 
when  it  is  pledged  by  a  society  having  credit  abroad 
to  secure  exchanges,  and  a  denomination  at  home 
pledged  to  its  support,  and  officers  to  see  to  its 
funds.  The  pastorate  and  membership  of  the  church 
are  ever  changing.  Individuals  are  rich  to-day,  and 
pjoor  to-morrow;  are  members  to-day,  and  excluded 
to-morrow;  are  alive  to-day,  and  dead  to-morrow. 

The  arrangement  under  which  Dr.  Binney.  has 
lately  gone  abroad  would  seem  to  be  all  which  is 
necessary  to  any  church  or  individual,  and  as  little 
security  as  any  missionary  should  be  asked  to  accept. 
Three  brethren  in  Philadelphia  have  assumed  the 
responsibility  of  his  support  (I  am  told)  through  the 
Missionary  Union.  It  would  be  much  more  difficult 
for  them  to  do  this  good  work  without  the  Union ; 
and  Mr.  Binney  has  now  the  Union  to  look  to  in  case 
of  any  disaster  to  them. 

THE  AGENCIES  OF  BENEVOLENT  SOCIETIES. 

I  have  purposely  reserved  this  topic,  several*times 


46 


incidentally  introduced  into  Dr.  Wayland’s  pamphlet, 
for  a  separate  consideration,  because  of  its  prime 
importance.  The  following  remark  of  the  pamphlet 
is  as  good  a  text  as  any  other : 

As  the  interest  in  them  all  (the  societies)  declines,  more 
agents  become  necessary.  Thus  the  Ibss  there  is  to  he  col¬ 
lected,  the  greater  the  expense  of  collection;  until  at  present, 
if  unrefuted  statements  are  to  he  believed,  the  amount  which 
we  pay  for  agencies  has  become  too  great  to  be  tolerated,  and 
must  be  diminished,  or  we  shall  soon  come  to  a  standstill 
altogether.” 

If  there  is  any  foundation  for  this  extremely  un¬ 
favorable  view,  it  is  incredible  that  the  managers 
of  the  societies,  and  the  agents  themselves,  should 
persist  in  their  course.  But,  I  beg  to  ask,  who  are 
the  managers  and  the  agents,  that  they  should  be 
charged  with  either  the  stupidity  of  not  understand¬ 
ing,  or  the  wickedness  of  persisting  in  such  a  pro¬ 
cedure  as  is  here  described  ?  Knowing  some  of  these 
brethren,  I  have  looked  with  suspicion  upon  the 
charges  of  this  description,  and  suppose  the  following 
considerations  a  refutation  of  them. 

First,  the  history  of  the  missionary  spirit  among  us 
is  evidence  that,  so  far  from  its  being  true  that  the 
“  decline  of  interest  in  the  societies  ”  increases  the 
agents,  they  have  been  essential  to  it  from  the  com¬ 
mencement. 

The  pamphlet  refers  to  the  successful  labors  of 
“  Mr.  Bice,  the  general  agent.”  The  men  are  still 
living  who  remember  in  what  apathy  the  denomina- 


47 


tion  was  found,  clergy  and  laity,  in  regard  to  mis¬ 
sions,  by  the  providence  of  God,  when  Judson  and 
Eice  were  converted  to  our  sentiments,  and  the  latter 
came  home  to  perform  the  first  agency  work  of  this 
kind  among  us.  From  that  time  to  the  present,  the 
annals  of  our  foreign  mission  operations  are  replete 
with  evidence  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  agents  to 
their  success.  When  there  were  no  other  societies, 
and  no  other  agents,  the  Foreign  Mission  cause  found 
most  difficulty  in  carrying  on  its  work,  and  not  as  is 
claimed  since  the  societies  became  so  numerous.  The 
fact  is,  that  agents  have  increased  on  precisely  op¬ 
posite  grounds  to  those  claimed  by  the  extract  I  have 
quoted,  namely,  as  the  interest  in  the  societies  has 
increased,  and  demanded  more  money. 

The  annals  of  all  our  societies,  as  well  as  the 
Foreign  Mission,  are  replete  with  evidence  that 
agents  have  been  materially  connected  with  their 
origin  as  well  as  progress.  As  Eice  and  Bennett  are 
well  known  names  as  agents  for  Foreign  Missions, 
so  we  have  Going,  and  Crawford,  and  Peck,  as  agents 
for  Home  Missions. 

One  would  suppose,  as  he  listens  to  the  objections 
to  agencies,  that  they  are  some  new  scheme,  foisted 
upon  the  denomination,  when  the  fact  is,  that  they 
have  been,  from  the  commencement,  an  absolute  ne¬ 
cessity  of  the  cause,  an  integral  part,  indeed,  of  it. 
It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  greater  injustice  than 
that  implied  in  the  attacks  upon  agencies ;  and  those 
who  are  responsible  for  it  should  look  into  the  history 
of  them. 


48 


The  denomination  meet  in  Convention,  and  decide 
on  certain  measures  for  different  missionary  purposes. 
They  choose  a  board  of  managers  to  carry  out  their 
plans,  and  adjourn;  missionaries  are  sent  out;  money 
is  demanded  to  pay  the  expenses ;  the  denomination 
is  appealed  to  through  the  press ;  circulars  are  sent 
to  the  pastors  and  leading  brethren ;  the  money  does 
not  come.  The  managers,  who  do  their  work  gra¬ 
tuitously,  have  given  more  than  any  other  class  of 
men,  and  have  loaned  their  credit  to  borrow  money 
to  pay  the  missionaries,  all  of  which  they  make  known, 
but  still  the  money  does  not  come.  What  shall  they 
do  ?  There  is  but  one  thing  they  can  do,  and  it  has 
always  been  a  last  resort.  They  get  the  best 
brethren  to  be  had,  on  the  best  terms  possible,  to 
canvass  the  churches.  This  brings  the  money,  when 
nothing  else  will;  and  this  is  the  simple  history  of 
all  our  agencies. 

What  if  it  were  true  that  agents  are  not  really  ne¬ 
cessary  ;  that  they  are  expensive ;  that  it  is  annoying 
to  have  so  many  of  them  circulating  among  the 
churches  ?  If  they  have  been  indispensable  in  our 
case — if  the  greatest  possible  economy  has  been 
used  in  procuring  them — and  if  they  make  as  little 
trouble  as  possible  in  performing  their  work,  it  is  all 
that  can  be  asked ;  and  all  this  is  eminently  true,  as 
any  page  of  our  history  is  evidence.  Similar  ob¬ 
jections  to  agencies  have  been  made  from  the  com¬ 
mencement.  In  the  annual  meetings  of  the  societies, 
and  in  the  monthly  meetings  of  the  managers,  this 
subject  has  been  discussed,  and  the  whole  ground 


49 


gone  over  in  every  possible  phase  of  it,  in  every  case 
to  be  decided  unanimously  in  favor  of  the  agencies, 
and  an  increase,  rather  than  a  diminution,  of  them, 
as,  with  all  its  evils,  the  only  alternative.  The 
managers  of  our  societies,  who  have  the  money  to 
raise,  and  who  know,  as  no  others  can,  what  is  neces¬ 
sary,  have  been  from  the  commencement,  and  are 
now,  unanimous  in  favor  of  the  agency  system,  as  the 
only  way  of  raising  the  necessary  funds. 

The  same  is  true  of  all  denominations  until  quite 
recently.  To  do  without  agents  is,  with  any  society,  a 
new  and  untried  theory,  and  time  only  can  prove  how 
it  will  work  in  any  case.  An  experiment  of  a  few 
months,  like  that  of  the  American  Sunday  School 
Union,  is  no  evidence  of  “  success.”  It  would  be 
singular,  indeed,  if  so  popular  an  institution,  and  one 
that  has  from  the  commencement  had  so  many  agents, 
has  not  thus  received  momentum  enough  to  go  on 
fairly  for  a  time  without  them.  A  few  years  at  least 
are  necessary  to  fairly  test  the  question ;  and  before 
they  transpire,  if  any  thing  is  to  be  learned  from  ex¬ 
perience  in  either  sacred  or  secular  affairs,  we  shall  be 
informed,  that  for  its  benevolent  purposes,  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Sunday  School  Union  has  been  obliged  to  return 
to  the  agency  system. 

I  am  aware  that  it  is  claimed  that  both  the  Presby¬ 
terian  and  the  Methodist  denominations  are  evidence 
that  missions  may  be  successfully  conducted  without 
agents.  But  what  are  the  facts  ?  Neither  of  them 
has  dispensed  with  special  agents,  so  called,  for  a 

sufficient  length  of  time  to  fairly  test  the  question  in 

& 


50 


their  cases.  But  besides,  and  more  important  than 
this,  they  still  have  agents,  only  by  a  different  name. 
The  Presbyterian  Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  with 
but  a  comparatively  small  number  of  wealthy  churches 
to  influence,  in  a  small  geographical  field,  with  author¬ 
itative  Synods  and  Presbyteries,  still  has  three  Cor¬ 
responding  Secretaries,  who  are,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  special  agents.  The  Methodists,  with  a 
“ discipline”  of  unbounded  influence,  providing  for  the 
missionary  institutions  of  the  denomination,  has,  be¬ 
sides,  seven  bishops  and  some  four  hundred  presiding 
ciders,  all  of  whom  are  general  superintendents  of  all 
the  affairs  of  the  denomination.  What  they  can  need 
of  other  agents  does  not  appear.  We  could  well  dis¬ 
pense  with  special  agents,  if  we  had  all  this  force  of 
general  superintendents. 

The  societies  that  most  fairly  compare  with  ours 
are  those  of  the  Congregational  Church ;  and  they  have 
the  advantage  of  us,  in  that  they  have  more  wealth  in 
a  smaller  geographical  circle ;  both  of  which  circum¬ 
stances  diminish  the  necessity  and  expense  of  agen¬ 
cies.  The  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions  has  never  hesitated  about  the  abso¬ 
lute  necessity  of  agents.  They  now  style  their  agents 
« District  Secretaries,”  and  one  has  only  to  examine 
their  report  to  be  aware  how  thoroughly  they  canvass 
their  field.  The  author  of  this  review  has  several 
times  conversed  with  the  senior  Secretary  of  the 
American  Board,  Bev.  Dr.  Anderson,  on  this  subject, 
who  assured  him  that  in  their  case,  special  agents  are, 
and  ever  have  been,  indispensable. 


51 


With  such  a  history  as  the  agencies  of  benevolent 
societies  have,  it  seems  idle  to  complain  of  them,  ruin¬ 
ous  to  undermine  them  by  injurious  statements,  and 
unjust  and  ungenerous  to  reflect  either  upon  the  man¬ 
agers  who  appoint  them,  or  the  agents  themselves. 
The  agents,  at  all  events,  deserve  a  better  recompense 
than  censure.  No  class  of  men  have  done  so  much 
disagreeable  work  for  missions  for  so  small  a  consid¬ 
eration.  Let  us  not  forget  the  adage,  u  Speak  well 
of  the  bridge  that  has  carried  you  safely  over.” 

Second,  there  are  other  considerations  adapted  to 
reconcile  us  to  what  experience  shows  is  in  our  case  a 
necessity. 

1.  We  ha xe  apostolic  precedent  for  agents  for  benevolent 
•purposes.  If  this  is  true,  we  surely  need  not  be  aston¬ 
ished  at  our  dependence  upon  them,  or  expect  to  be 
able  to  do  without  them.  Money  was  needed  for  the 
purposes  of  the  church  in  its  early  history,  and  breth¬ 
ren  were  sent  to  solicit  it.  This  is  substantially  the 
agency  system  of  the  present  day.  We  have  in  1  Cor., 
9  —  not  to  name  other  passages  —  as  obvious  a  recog¬ 
nition  of  this  system  as  is  necessary,  and  in  this  case 
agents  are  sent  to  a  very  liberal  church.  See  par¬ 
ticularly  the  third  and  fifth  verses : 

“  Yet  have  I  sent  the  brethren,  lest  our  boasting  of  you  should 
be  in  vain  in  this  behalf,  that,  as  I  said,  ye  may  be  ready.” 

«  Therefore,  I  thought  it  necessary  to  exhort  the  brethren 
that  they  would  go  before  unto  you,  and  make  up  beforehand 
your  bounty,  whereof  ye  had  notice  before,  that  the  same  might 
be  ready,  as  a  matter  of  bounty  and  not  of  covetousness.” 


52 


If  it  is  said  that  these  were  not  paid  agents,  I 
answer  that  this  is  no  truer  of  the  u  brethren  sent  ” 
in  this  case  than  of  the  apostle  who  sent  them.  Hence, 
whether  it  is  true  or  not  that  they  were  not  paid  for 
their  services,  it  is  of  no  more  force  in  the  one  case 
than  in  the  other.  Unpaid  agents  of  apostolic  times 
are  as  good  a  precedent  for  paid  ones  of  our  times  as 
unpaid  pastors.  We  presume  both  were  paid  ;  but  it 
is  not  necessary  to  argue  this  point,  for  whatever  the 
fact  is,  it  is  of  the  same  force  in  both  cases. 

2.  Agents  are  evangelists.  In  becoming  agents  they 
do  not  cease  to  be  Christian  ministers.  Those  who 
are  suitable  for  agents,  do  sufficient  besides  their 
special  work  to  justify  no  inconsiderable  part  of  their 
expense.  If  the  church  to  which  they  belong  have  not 
mistaken  their  Christian  character;  if  the  council  of 
ordination  was  not  deceived  in  their  call  to  the  min¬ 
istry  ;  if  their  numerous  acquaintances  do  not  entirely 
overvalue  them,  then  they  are  u  doing  the  work  of  an 
evangelist,”  in  addition  to  their  special  agency.  In¬ 
deed,  is  it  not  probable  that  their  more  important 
and  prior  office,  namely,  that  of  Christian  ministers, 
is  worth  more  to  the  cause  than  their  special  agency  ? 
To  be  sure,  they  are  thrown  in  contact  with  churches 
that  do  not  particularly  need  them,  but  so  they  are 
with  many  more  in  very  different  circumstances.  The 
witnesses  of  their  ministry  are  all  over  the  land, 
in  grateful  pastors,  mature  Christians,  and  young  con¬ 
verts.  Just  how  important  travelling  ministers  are,  in 
the  general  plan  of  the  world’s  conversion,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  show,  when  it  is  true,  that  the  Master  as 


53 


much  u  gave  some  evangelists  ”  “  for  the  perfecting  of 
the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edify¬ 
ing  of  the  body  of  Christ,”  “as  some  apostles,  and 
some  prophets,  and  some  pastors  and  teachers.” 

3.  If  special  agents  are  expensive ,  and  if  there  are 
many  other  inconveniences  attaching  to  them  in  religious 
matters ,  it  is  no  new  thing  under  the  sun.  You  look 
in  vain  for  any  secular  enterprise ,  as  well  as  sacred , 
where  you  do  not  discover  precisely  the  same  thing.  The 
law  of  special  agency  is  universal,  and  everything  pro¬ 
ceeds  on  this  law,  regardless  of  any  necessary  cost  or 
annoyance.  Clerks  and  police  and  constables  and 
teachers  and  rulers,  etc.,  cost  money,  and  are  often 
annoying,  especially  to  evil  doers.  Undoubtedly 
agencies  for  benevolent  societies  must  come  under 
the  same  general  laws.  If  every  person  would  do  as 
well  as  he  knows  how,  and  hence  might  do  and  ought, 
it  would  be  a  great  saving  in  numerous  ways ;  but 
alas,  men  are  not  angels,  and  we  have  not  yet  fallen 
upon  millennial  days,  as  it  respects  any  enterprise. 
What  is  not  done  perfectly,  which  is  always  the  best 
way,  must  be  done  in  the  next  best  way,  and  we  must 
pay  the  price  of  the  extra  friction. 

It  is  easy  to  say  that  churches  should  be  intelligent 
and  benevolent,  unsolicited ;  and  that  pastors  should  do 
the  preaching  and  collecting  necessary  to  all  benevo¬ 
lent  societies,  and  that  if  they  would  do  thus  and 
thus,  special  agents  would  be  unnecessary.  But  then 
what  ?  If  they  will  not  do  this  very  reasonable  thing, 
as  they  never  did,  and  especially  as  nothing  is  done  in 
this  imperfect  world  just  as  it  might  be  and  ought  to 


54 


be,  then,  in  the  exercise  of  all  the  wisdom  and  purity 
we  can  command,  we  must  do  the  best  we  can. 

4.  It  is  obviously  unjust  to  estimate  the  value  of  an 
agent  for  benevolent  objects  by  the  amount  of  money  which 
passes  through  his  hands.  This  is  the  ordinary  way 
of  doing  it.  But  I  have  already  shown  that  he  does 
enough  else  to  justify  a  part  of  the  expense,  and 
how  large  a  part  no  one  can  tell.  The  great  day  may 
reveal  facts  in  this  direction  which  no  one  antici¬ 
pated,  and  is  as  likely  to  in  the  case  of  a  faithful 
agent  as  pastor.  Not  only  so,  but  besides  the  money 
which  passes  through  his  hands,  he  may  be  opening 
channels  which  will  flow  on  forever.  The  legacies 
which  he  may  influence  may  result  in  a  greatly  larger 
sum  than  all  his  other  receipts.  An  agent  of  the  Mis¬ 
sionary  Union  once  visited  a  brother  who  had  .never 
given  the  Board  a  dollar,  and  who  had  no  known  pur¬ 
pose  of  any  special  benevolence  in  any  direction. 
There  is  as  much  evidence  as  of  anything  else,  that 
the  purpose  which  afterwards  appeared,  was  formed 
by  the  grace  of  Glod  during  and  by  means  of  that  visit. 
He  gave  the  agent  a  five  dollar  note  on  parting 
with  him,  and  an  indefinite  pledge  that  ere  long  the 
Secretary  at  Boston  should  hear  from  him.  In  the 
course  of  a  few  months  the  Magazine  acknowledged 
a  very  large  sum  from  the  brother,  which  was  contin¬ 
ued  through  his  life,  amounting  in  all  to  several  thou¬ 
sand  dollars. 

5.  Whatever  necessity  there  is  for  agents ,  the  churches 
and  pastors  are  responsible  for ,  and  not  the  managers  of 
the  societies ,  or  the  agents  themselves.  There  has  un- 


doubtedly  grown  up  in  some  quarters  an  unfriendly 
feeling  on  this  subject,  and  agents  are  sometimes 
personally  sufferers  on  account  of  it.  Nothing  is 
more  unjust  than  this.  The  churches  and  pas¬ 
tors  are  the  only  parties  who  can  remedy  this  evil. 
The  societies  only  ask  for  the  money  necessary  to 
perform  the  work  committed  to  them  by  the  denomi¬ 
nation.  If  the  pastor  can  do  the  work,  why  does  he 
not  do  it  ?  No  agent  will  then  trouble  him.  The 
visit  of  an  agent  is  jprima  facie  evidence  that  the  work 
has  not  been  done ;  for  the  society  has  no  motive  to 
increase  either  the  odium  or  expense  of  sending  an 
agent  without  absolute  necessity. 

It  is  said,  in  reply,  whilst  agents  are  appointed, 
pastors  will  avail  themselves  of  them,  on  the  ground, 
that  it  the  expense  is  to  be  incurred,  they  might  as 
well  have  the  advantage  of  it  as  others ;  and  that  the 
true  way  to  test  the  question  of  doing  without  agents, 
is  to  cut  them  off  at  once.  There  are  several  fallacies 
in  this  theory.  It  is  not,  certainly,  a  very  elevated 
motive  for  receiving  agents.  Besides,  it  proceeds  on 
the  mistaken  supposition  that  there  are  agents  enough 
to  entirely  canvass  the  field.  But  no  society  has  such 
a  number  of  agents ;  and  hence,  if  those  who  can  do 
the  work  themselves  will  do  it,  the  agents  may  go  to 
those  who  will  not.  Consequently  all  done  without 
agents,  is  a  clear  gain  to  the  societies.  With  all  the 
complaint  of  the  number  of  agents,  a  very  large  num¬ 
ber  of  churches  do  little  or  nothing  for  any  object, 
because  the  societies  have  not  a  sufficient  number  of 
agents  to  reach  them.  But  still  more  important  is 


56 


the  fact;  that  this  theory  asks  of  the  managers  and 
agents  what  they  know;  by  repeated  experiments,  to 
be  impossible.  We  must  pay  our  missionaries,  they 
reply  to  it.  We  have  tried  all  methods,  and  are  still 
trying  them,  as  far  as  it  is  safe.  You  are  asking  us 
to  do  what  you  alone  can  do.  Give  us  the  means  of 
sustaining  our  missionaries,  and  our  agents  shall  not 
visit  you.  Until  you  do  this,  we  have  no  alternative 
but  to  rely  mainly  upon  good  agents.  We  will  get 
the  best  men  on  the  best  possible  terms.  We  can  do 


no  more. 


rW&M 


:» 


■  $ 


SgSS 

7  y.« 

S8 


Vs 


